User talk:Srich32977/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Ron Manners, etc

Thank you for your edits. I think you're right about my tone--I am a bit harried because of a DYK which turned out to be a nightmare yesterday (although it is finally on the front page). Then I come back online and see that an unregistered account wants to delete his page...Anyway, I will take a short break from Wikipedia after this one gets saved I think!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The same unregistered address has just removed some of his books. Would you like to add them again?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ALEC

Hey, just a quick note to say that I appreciate your contributions to ALEC. We might disagree on a few issues but that's healthy. I've been editing the article lonely and largely unchecked for some time and it's always good to get some critical feedback. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Re this edit, I think the sourcing is sufficient to support the "wave of criticism" language but I'll find additional sourcing sometime soon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"criticism against" ALEC is far different than "critical coverage about". "critical coverage" is a neutral term, whereas "criticism" is often seen as negative (even though it is, dictionary-wise, a neutral term). "Criticism" sections in WP are problematic. So if you find additional sourcing about ALEC, please be sure it is balanced. In any event, stick to what the sources say and you'll do better and get less critical commentary from me. – S. Rich (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand the difference. There is nothing wrong with criticism or the term criticism in WP. The problem is with whole sections that are devoted to criticism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I'm afraid you don't understand (or simply misunderstand) the difference. I recommend the essay WP:Criticism for more information. But an example of my concern is here: I edited the section heading to provide a neutral term. "Secrecy" by itself may be a neutral word, but when it is used as a section heading for a section in which all of the 5 paragraphs are negative critical commentary about ALEC and its' confidentiality policies, it is a less-than-neutral section heading for a blatantly non-neutral (e.g., "Criticisms") section. (BTW, I've fixed a typo in my previous post, but I don't think the typo contributed to your misunderstanding.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't say, "you don't understand" and then point me to an essay I've already discussed at length with other editors. If you have a problem with neutrality, then explain your view. Is it the language "criticism against" that you feel is non-neutral as compared to "critical coverage about"? And if so, can you explain why you feel that way? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Come on, you said "I don't understand". And don't expect me to go back to a 6 month old discussion. Also, it is clear that using the phrase "criticism against" is entirely non-neutral when the word "against" is not in the source. – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me. There's no obligation to use the exact same language that a source uses. In any case, perhaps "criticism of" would satisfy you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I do appreciate your discussion with me. Please forgive me if I become brusk. And I should not like me bruskness to chase you off from the topic or your editing contributions. Regarding the edits, while you say there's no requirement to use the same language, we must avoid using language that modifies the meaning that the source has provided. When we say "criticism against", we are doing just that. When we keep it neutral, and say "critical coverage regarding", we are comporting the meaning provided by the source. I do not think "criticism of" works because of the general negative connotations that "criticism" contains. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not aware of the negative connotations associated with "criticism." Please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall. But some other issues concern me at present. I'll cogitate and post more tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Other issues (and fatigue) persist, and I'm limited to gnomish edits at present. Perhaps I can apply some real mental power to your concerns a bit later. (I do see another, brand new editor has made some changes to the article.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete talk page sections?

Why did you delete these sections? They were improperly archived, appearing in the archives below the archive footer. You are hounding me? I am well aware of the battleground mentality you have repeatedly expressed, e.g., at Austrian Economics arbitration, and I will not hesitate to open an RFC/U on the history of your interactions with me if you do not improve your behavior immediately. EllenCT (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The sections were not "improperly" archived. Such archiving is done automatically. In this case the archiving is set for 60 days of no activity. I answered the concern about the archiving and I suggested a work-around. E.g., start a new discussion and provide a link to the archived page. Feel free to bring up an RFC/U. – S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Echanis

Hi,

Thanks for your note.

I do not have an commercial interest in my postings ref Michael D. Echanis.

If you have specifics otherwise please share and I'll be happy to clarify / correct. Please include sources of such allegations if there are any.

Nor do I have a conflict of interest in any regard or respect. Far from it, actually.

I have, in the recent past, self-edited the initial lengthly piece down to a very reasonable length.

It is heavily referenced - more so than many other such pieces I see on Wiki - and certainly more so than previous postings on the subject prior to my becoming aware of and entering into the contributor catagory.

Certainly, however, if you have specifics please let me know and I'll respond in an appropriate manner.

Thank you.

Greg Walker (Retired) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magmaster (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you and User talk:Walkergreg the same person? If so, you have a WP:conflict of interest, specifically WP:SELFCITE when you add this material to the article. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And here you clearly have a conflict of interest. I am not the COI police, nor an administrator. I'm trying to be helpful so that you can edit Wikipedia within the guidelines. – S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Mr Walker had any bad intentions. For the record he is one of the foremost authorities on Echanis and is by no means a "fly-by-night" hack writer. He has authored a number of books and was the editor of a number of magazines in the gun/knife/martial arts/military genres. If he had not added the sources to his own work, I would have added them, myself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so either. But the article has problems and needs fixing, which I am glad to see you doing. If Walker would declare COI, we can resolve one of the template messages on the article page. – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. If being the acknowledged subject matter expert on Michael Echanis is a COI please advise. This as opposed to the initial fabrications, fiction, myth, lies and other less than stellar "historical" information I encountered when I first saw/read this WikiPost. I am the only authority on this subject who has properly researched, to include FOIA, Echanis' military background and stated for the record he was NOT either Ranger or Special Forces qualified as so often quoted. That is not the action of someone seeking to continue to paint the subject in the best of lights...which would be a COI. As stated in the August/September 2013 issue of Black Belt Magazine, in conjunction with the article I wrote on Mike Echanis, I have not asked for or received any financial reimbursement for said work - nor the article in the December/January 2014 issue of the same publication announcing Mike's induction into the BB Hall of Fame. I believe if you will re-read the current Wiki post you will find it quite concise, accurate, referenced and appropriate. Magmaster (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

People like to see their work cited. Please look at WP:SELFCITE. Also, see WP:COI declaration. And please answer whether you are the same person as User:Walkergreg. I'm glad that you are an expert and that you've published material about him. The question is how do we use the material in Wikipedia. When an individual gets FOIA results and says Echanis' Forms 2 & 2-1 say such and such, they are using Primary Sources and conducting WP:Original research. We've got rules, and we assist each other in following the rules. – S. Rich (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

NPA

:@SPECIFICO: If it is so stupid, if it is so irrelevant, if it is so miniscule, you could leave it alone. But the source found the detail interesting enough to put in his article. Netoholic likes SM and you (Personal attack removed) remove the wikilink. And then you present Nobel as a straw-man and expect me to report back to you. Hell no. If Nobel's article had a wikilink to the neighborhood of his boyhood playground, no editor would remove it. – S. Rich (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, here is the diff from the page history of what Specifico considers to be a personal attack and therefor justification for a {{rpa}} template: [1]. – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Stefan_Molyneux. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
You've posted text which falsely attributes inappropriate views, feelings, and motives to me. This is not acceptable. Because you've recently made considerable progress in avoiding such behavior I have decided, rather than proceeding immediately to pursue a remedy, to extend you the courtesy of this warning. I request that you redact the inappropriate personal remarks you made about me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attack. Your point could have been made within talk page guidelines and WP principles. With at least one other editor apparently preparing an RfC/U against you at this time, I hope you will exercise the caution that can help you get through the process without unnecessary travail. I certainly don't wish to see your efforts needlessly diverted. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so I mis-read what your feelings are about SM? You could have been a bit clearer and said that you have no dislike or like for SM. (And like specify what language you'd want revised or redacted.) You know, like saying that you only feel he is not a filosofofer, whatever. Then I might have revised my statement. (Even so, I think your stated rationale for removing the wikilink is an invented one.) But no. You get on your high horse and template me and accuse me of NPA. Oh, who is the editor preparing an RFC/U? Are you going to join him or her? Well, you two can have at me all you like. It'll be fun. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're on increasingly thin ice in this stupid little mess, Srich. Your edit summary on the move is sarcastic and misrepresents and belittles the simple objective reason for my having contacted you about your initial misstep. I don't know whether you can fix it, but this will serve as an additional warning to you not to represent the motives or opinions of other editors and to exercise at least the level of care you would marshall to the paraphrase of a source reference in a WP article. This post will serve as a record that you are fully aware of the problem with your recent actions. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your loaded comment about "problem with recent actions" does not serve any purpose. Rather, I am aware of your tendency to post bullshit warnings to me. All you had to do was say "I do not dislike SM." But you wouldn't do that. Well, I will ask you now flat out: Do you like SM? Do you dislike SM? Are you neutral? Or what? – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux

Kindly undo your premature endorsement of the lede text. We operate by consensus. I don't like the change for reasons which I've stated. As I recall, there are two others who prefer the more complete version. You know better than to short circuit an ongoing discussion. Frankly, your behavior had the effect of facilitating edit warring, battleground, and ownership behavior for the other editor who was only waiting for the clock to run out on his already fourth revert before again jumping the gun on attempted resolution on talk. Please undo your proxy edit. There was no consensus for it and a short lapse in the talk dialogue is no reason to jump the gun, particularly in light of the recent history of this article. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rob has thanked me for the edit, which indicates he's satisfied. Please post your objections to the new version (e.g., with FDR explained in a note) at Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 2#Freedomain Radio vs freedomainradio.com. BTW, my edits are my own – I do not engage in WP:PROXYING. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me but you have the order wrong. Jumping the gun prior to consensus is particularly unfortunate in this dysfunctional editing environment. No editor should expect to step away from the computer for a few hours and find this aggressively argued change, inserted. A ping thanking you after the fact is no endorsement of skipping established protocol. There are a dozen editors more or less recently involved here. Moreover the appearance of helping an editor avoid being blocked for edit warring by doing his edit without any prior agreement is only endorsing his repeated tactic of aggressive edits in advance of consensus. I know you care about process and community on WP, so I've chosen to address you here as an aside. Please undo and let's resolve this matter as a group. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

I made the change, and if it is accepted it becomes consensus. I posted a note about the change on the talk page and invited editors to comment. Take a look at policy, which says "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." – S. Rich (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As you really should understand by now, that does not mean that, once a discussion is underway, it is OK to precipitously make a change contrary to the stated and unresolved concerns of editors on the discussion thread. You're kinda in a pickle again here. If you stubbornly refuse to undo your accommodation of Netoholic's edit you are adding to the archived record of actions which likely would be disapproved in any community review. If you'd prefer that I not extend you the courtesy of coming here to give you the opportunity to correct your misstep, that's up to you. Please undo your edit. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor, kimosabe, and don't repeat the "everyones behaving like children" nonsense after it's died its natural ridiculous death. What's the point? That's not grown up, is it? SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I ain't no Ke-mo sah-bee. The point about childish behavior is valid still. Netoholic inflames by using profanity (etc) and you inflame by commenting back, warning about 5RR, implying that I'm Netoholic's proxy, and commenting here. – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I asked him to voluntarily step aside rather than report his 5RR which would have led to a block and a lot of wasted energy and discussion. You think that would have been calming? A courtesy, no warning, no threat. Capiche? Meanwhile, when an editor declares that he's acting childish and then continues to act the same way he was acting before his statement, that's dumb. I have made no inflammatory comments. Are you Netoholic's proxy? (Personal attack removed). I have no reason to think you're going to repeat that. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You've misused the rpa template to alter the meaning of my statement and the text you substituted with the template, characterizing your action as a lapse of judgment, is not what WP (or anyone else) calls a "personal attack." The meaning of my statement, before your alteration contrary to talk page guidelines, was that your action represented a lapse of judgment and not an unanswered open question as to whether you're his proxy or any suggestion that you are. Unless you wish your violation of talk guidelines to remain on the record, I suggest you undo your template and the resultant alteration of my civil and collegial statement. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You were so quick to ascribe NPA to my comment that you disliked SM, and you are so quick to .... (Well, I'll say no more on this point.) Here is a suggestion: take a look at my tit-for-tat rpa templating. You don't see what I'm trying to get accomplished? I'd like you two to grow up. But I feel you miss this subtle, but important effort, as you describe my rather considered edits as a lapse of judgement. No, you dress-up your comments with "violation" of TP guidelines. No, Specifico, if you were so collegial, you'd keep WP:DTTR in mind. (E.g., with your irksome comments above.) So, here is a suggestion -- follow Net's led and remove the rpa template yourself. I'll leave it as is. – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You and Netoholic should both simmer down and grow up, IMO. Between the two of you, I'd say the environoment on that article has deteriorated to the point where no progress can be made. Your judgment has been erratic. For example you took him to AN, where he was roundly criticised for various disruptive behavioral patterns and then you foolishly believed that he would cease and desist if the matter were closed with no action. Well, the his behavior and personal vituperation have continued unabated and the participation of other editors has ground to a halt. With only the two of you left on that article nearly around the clock, there can be little hope of permanent improvement. The editors who previously offered a variety of constructive input on the Molyneux article have largely departed after seeing their work undone like clockwork, carefully timed -- except for today's lapse -- to avoid any 3RR violation. How embarrassing for you that after your "do the honors" comment, Netoholic admitted that he was trying to game the edit warring timetable but miscalculated. Just remember, when you lose your temper, when you make POINTy edits, when you mis-cite policy and especially when you try to position yourself in what a wise man once called your pseudo-Admin mode, it all stays in the archive. You can't undo it. Others will see it if they look. That's why I hope you'll calm down and reflect before engaging. It will be better not only for all your colleagues here, but for you personally as you struggle to achieve your goals here. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your help

I think your help would be appreciated in the discussion Here, since you closed the previous discussion about Tesla's birthplace. There's some dispute regarding the conclusion of that discussion. It would be helpful to clarify whether the consensus determined that the present wording should stay, or that there was no consensus to change the present wording with the suggested formulation. Asdisis (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, while I appreciate your efforts to improve the article (and your contacting me) it is time to put down the WP:STICK. – S. Rich (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. However I think that Tesla's birthplace still has double meanings. We have made significant progress with the discussion that went to ANI. We eliminated one of the double meanings. We just need to implement that decision in the article. Would you like to give a clarification to establish whether the referenced discussion is appropriate according to the RfC. It would be helpful because, if I interpreted the decision of ANI in the wrong way the discussion should be closed. Two people suggested that. However, I still think that the conclusion that you made when you closed the RfC is that there is no consensus to change the present wording for suggested one, not that the present wording should not be changed ever, for any other suggestion, even if it is according to the decision of ANI. Asdisis (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT

I understand what you are trying to do, but in my view you are putting yourself at some risk of being found to violate WP:HOUNDING. If you are convinced that EllenCT has an established pattern of disruptive editing, it would be better to open an RfU and have the community act, rather than acting yourself. RfUs are a lot of work to set up soundly (and it is important to do that, lest the effort boomerang on you) but that is a better road to go down. You have done everything you could do talk directly with her in a civil way. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, for your support. And I understand the risk. I'm hoping my comments will generate more support and eventually get her to stop the soapboxing etc. But I think an RFC/U will be next. – S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I understand what you have been trying to do and I think the effort is well intentioned (and is deeply rooted in Wikipedia's core values of trying to work things out.) You have established a record that you have tried very hard to communicate with her and teach her. I don't think you should continue that strategy; there is no sign that she is hearing you and as I wrote above in my view you are now putting yourself at some risk of being found to violate HOUNDING. In going down this road you have to keep your own nose very clean. As I wrote above you have done plenty enough with respect to trying direct interaction. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• comment In my opinion, Srich has gotten himself up the creek in the same way with nearly a dozen editors over the past several years. It's unfortunate because there's a side of him that wants very much to be helpful and chip in where there's work to be done. What has happened is that he tends to cloak himself inappropriately in the mantle of one who's acting not as a peer but as an arbiter or magistrate. He has had a hard time disengaging or hearing feedback from those who've tried to steer him to more constructive modes of interaction. I sincerely hope that he will hear your clear and supportive suggestion that he disengage from EllenCT, with whom he's had fruitless, aggressive interactions for quite some time now. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog has given some wise counsel. On the other hand, Specifico, you reassert baseless charges. I've asked you to cite any instance where I've misapplied or mis-cited policy, but you've never responded. Why do you assert that I've been disruptive to the project? And exactly who are those dozen editors over the past several years -- those who've been banned & blocked? Here's a suggestion for you, Specifico -- see if you can get Ellen to modify her interaction and editing behaviors. I'll hold off and await your success. – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Great. If you voluntarily IBAN one way from EllenCT, then I will communicate with her to whatever extent she desires. Please indicate your acceptance and everyone will be better off. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. And I will prompt you if I see something that needs commentary. As long as everyone benefits, I will IBAN myself. If everyone does not benefit, then an RfC/U or ANI may be the course of action to follow. – S. Rich (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hounding has consistently been a problem for you Srich, particularly wrt female editors. Even when you voluntarily agreed to an Iban, you couldn't help but snark at me on my talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to pile on here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What piling on? There is no basis for the hounding accusation and the expansion of the thread into "misogyny" is unfounded as well. These folks know nothing about my family life, social life, or professional life. (Professionally I've worked with women, supervised women, and been supervised by women. A woman comrade who served with me in Iraq suffered grievous injuries from an IED. I was privileged to comfort her and her family.) Well, perhaps some persons want to play the victim, and thus invent all sorts of evil that I am guilty of. (Of course, my observation in this will become victim blaming.) Is there evidence to support the "piling on"? I don't think so. Let them squawk. (Bad pun intended.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A unilateral IBAN here would be preposterous and detrimental to the project. Avoiding her Talk Page is one thing, but there's absolutely no reason for you or anyone else to refrain from reverting or commenting on her low quality, POV pushing edits or baseless personal attacks where appropriate. Hopefully that's not what you meant by IBAN. VictorD7 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings VictorD7. I believe Srich and I have voluntarily worked out an arrangement that we are going to try, It's promising and we hope it will be effective and lead to a calmer and more productive editing environment. Please give us a chance before presenting ideas as to other avenues of approach. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to comment directly on Specifico's offer, but another edit came in to disrupt my chain of thought. Nothing in WP is forever. Banned & blocked editors can come back to the community, articles change, editors change their minds. My feeling is that Specifico's efforts will help, but they do not then the "case" as to Ellen will have another aspect to it. I've agreed to the IBAN, and I can change my mind as circumstances warrant. So I await Ellen's next edit so we can see how this shakes out. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit confict)It wasn't clear what all that "arrangement" entails (even EllenCT didn't ask for an IBAN, just that he refrain from posting on her talk page), though it was clear that he expects you to try and address EllenCT's misconduct, which I've never seen you do before. Of course, as Srich said, this isn't just between the two of them, but involves EllenCT's habitual disruptive conduct regarding numerous editors and articles. You're welcome, I guess. VictorD7 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Machinery of Freedom page

Hi. You may or may not have looked through the history of the page in question. SPECIFICO removed almost all the content on the claim that it was "unsourced", leaving the article a stub, which I reverted today. I noticed that you have added a request for more citations on the page -- can you explain what sort of citations you believe are currently lacking? I will then look for them. --Pmetzger (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm familiar with the page and with Specifico. Articles about books are often a problem. The books speak for themselves, so it is tempting to read and add our own analysis. But that is not our function in WP. We take the secondary sources (things like book reviews or commentary from other writings) and incorporate them into the article. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article for more info. (In this particular case we have one source. One.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC) @Pmetzger: Also, please revise the "near-vandalism" talk page heading. I recommend retitling it to something neutral like "Recent changes". The section heading is not "yours". It is simply a title that all editors can refer to without point of view being asserted. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've retitled the Talk section as you asked to simply reflect the net effect of the recent changes -- the original title was indeed insufficiently neutral and I have corrected my mistake. On the subject of the content, the stuff I restored was not analysis but pure description of content, which is easily sourced to specific pages in the book itself. Analysis about Friedman's methods appears to have also been added, but it has been footnoted with references at this point. You've also mentioned some suggested improvements on the Talk page, which seem largely reasonable -- would appreciate it if you could respond stating if you think my proposed ways of handling each of your three suggestions would be adequate. Lastly, the notability discussion seems quite oddly flavored -- if you wished, and wanted to propose a simple way of solving that which does not require encrusting the article with references to the all of the mass of scholarly works citing it, it would be a help to all involved. --Pmetzger (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the Talk page, I've replied to two of them. Also, I restored the AC navbar to the page. It might not have been obvious, but the article is about one of the first modern books on anarchocapitalism (which is why it is so well known), and it is indeed listed in the "literature" page linked from the navbar. If it isn't quite yet all per hoyle for inclusion of the nav bar, it should be made so by the time the clean up we're doing here is over, as the bar is almost certainly needed as people reading the page will want to look for more information on the topic of the book. --Pmetzger (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I can't show you the diff of your hatting because some stuff has been revdel'd but I can show you the diff where Tarc reverted you here. The next time you intervene with something I'm involved in at ANI with an administrative action even though you are a non-administrator, I'll be seeking some sort of sanction against you. Your officiousness is becoming silly and disruptive in its own right: that's why so many people are reverting you or telling you to go away when you post admin-type messages on their talk pages. Drop it, please. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What prompted me was your uncivil/NPA "No, Tarc. It's just you not being able to read English again. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)". I've seen you take such jabs in the past, and they do little to advance discussions. And you are completely incorrect about "so many people" telling me to stay off their pages. You and the ever charming Eric are about the only ones. CMDC welcomes me and Specifico may be nominating me for admin in the not so distant future. – S. Rich (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think that I was uncivil then fucking well report me, don't hat it. Did you see the recent ANI thread about Tarc misrepresenting what I said? Did SPECIFICO's recent comment here register with you? Was that in relation to the thread where I called you a pseudo-admin? Certainly, you are. Don't do NACs etc at ANI. Simple. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not worth reporting. To be clear, your comments directed solely at Tarc are not worth the trouble. It just looks like you and Tarc are in a pissing contest, not much more. Consider, your comments are solidly in the Orange. (See thumb|right|375px|Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.) BTW, you might read the ANI instructions – NACs are acceptable, by experienced editors. So go ahead and do some closures yourself. They are interesting and fun. The comments that result from the efforts are so worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Netoholic: rather than clutter the ANI thread with a response to you, I'll answer here: I really don't consider myself a victim of his behavior. That said, I do not think a site ban will result. I've proposed an IBAN for the two of them in the past, but hadn't garnered support. Seems, though, that an IBAN will go through this time. And it ought to be two-way – because I don't think CMDC would be following Specifico. – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, whether you feel like a victim doesn't change the intent behind SPECIFICO's behavior. He's flagrantly committing WP:HOUNDING, you know it more than I do since I've only been involved in one of other side-battles of this continual war between you guys. I've seen his stalking of you pointed out several times. I have avoided becoming involved or commenting (because I don't want to be accused of the same), but I have seen it, and if I need to I'll provide evidence of him stalking you, on your behalf. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No. You are incorrect in your assessment. Specifico may have posted bullshit about me here and there, but I don't think creating "irritation, annoyance or distress" was his aim. Yes, he was irritating and annoying at times. But the result of his remarks are different from the aim of his remarks. I'm a big boy and can handle all sorts of annoyance & irritation, especially when it is petty. Maybe he was just testing in order to evaluate whether I'd be a worthwhile admin. If so, then I think I've passed the test. So I do regret that you posted diffs involving me on the ANI. (And I regret that I was not clearer about the lack of need to supply "evidence".) I've said so, and I wish you'd revert the entire thread about me. It was a feckless effort. (To be clear, I recommend removing the thread and my response.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'll be blunt here. I think the reason you don't want his stalking of you brought up is because you don't want *your* stalking (of him, me, ellenCT, Steeltrap, etc) brought up. You are just as prone to hounding, though I think less malicious about it, but perhaps in some ways more active at it and more misguided. Like I said, though I've *seen* a lot of stuff about hounding pop up on your talk page, I don't insert myself into it. But in this case, he is hounding me, you, and CMDC, and *his* behavior is being looked at on ANI at the moment. More than likely, the day will come when your actions be looked at. I hope for your sake its not during that RFA you've been campaigning for. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You can think and say what you want, but this idea about me stalking anyone is simply minor annoying, irritating bullshit. What you see is simple overlap in areas of interest. Offhand I think Molyneux is the primary article of overlap for us three. I first edited him in February 2012, Specifico in March 2013, Carol (1 edit) in May 2013, you in April this year, Steeletrap in June, and Gamaliel in July. (So my interest pre-dates anyone else.) For Mises.org, Carol first edited in December 2006, I in May 2010, Specifico in November 2012, Steeletrap in August 2013. (Of the four, I'm the only one now free to edit on the topic.) So what? Re EllenCT, she backed off of her POV pushing in economics and beekeeping, and Specifico volunteered to mediate. She is editing again on income inequality, which is a topic I'm interested in. (I was surprised when the WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence ignored the evidence about her. And how many comments did I make about her? Zero.) You see stuff on my talk page, but it is easy to post bullshit, You might see those who accuse me of hounding or other misbehavior, but they do so without evidence. They are creating smoke, nothing more. When or if RFA comes up for me, there will be some smoke too. But no fire. – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

{{Yo:Netoholic}} I wish I had taken a closer look at those diffs about me earlier. They offer no support for your case whatsoever. Please do yourself a big favor and remove them. That means you take out my comments too. – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you went back to 2013 you'd see a lot more of SPECIFICO reverting Srich; but they obviously do enjoy their talk page battles and Srich doesn't want to get on his bad side. But your Srich section did encourage me to put together my half completed listing of just a few more incidents. SPECIFICO is legendary for intimidating people on their talk pages so they don't speak out again, but too tired to put together 8 or 9 of those examples.

I agree SRich can be a pest, but he is not malicious, as you say. I quess it's from a career as a bureaucratic nitpicker; or else that's what made him so good in his career. Just a cuddly compulsive bureaucrat. Anyway, now I just archive his talk page messages quicker than previously. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on Bitcoin

For my education: does WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL also apply to the following text in the article, or what is the difference between the following and what you deleted:

The IRS classified bitcoins as a capital asset end of March 2014[169] and subject to taxes on capital gains.[170] On 8 May 2014, the US Federal Election Commission issued draft guidance to US politicians who want to receive bitcoin donations.[171] The Commission declined to declare bitcoins currency, opting to deem them items "of value."[172] In May 2014, Brett Stapper, the co-founder of Falcon Global Capital, registered to lobby members of Congress and federal agencies on issues related to bitcoin.[173] As of June 2014, there are no new rules at the state level, although the New York State Department of Financial Services intended to propose regulations no later than the end of the second quarter of 2014. As of 11 March 2014, it officially invited bitcoin exchanges to apply with them.[174] In June 2014 California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) drafted legislation (Assembly Bill 129) to legalize bitcoin and all other alternative and digital currency, such as Litecoin, Dogecoin, Starbucks Stars, and Amazon Coins.[175] However, Dickinson "thinks the federal government should regulate the cryptocurrency" and said "I saw this legislation as a ways of cleaning up the code in California to conform to reality".[175]

It seems to me that what I contributed is exactly the same as the above. Must the above then also be deleted in terms of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL.

I just don´t see any difference between the above and what I contributed. Homni (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)~

What does "Primary Source" mean? Homni (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so. But the best place to discuss is the article talkpage. Also, see WP:PRIMARY. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I hereby kindly invite you in terms of WP:BRD to discuss the Bitcoin problem on the Bitcoin talk page.Homni (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have done so. And I expect other editors will comment as well. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

Srich, is Peter Schiff an Austrian Economist? That was quite a brouhaha a couple of years ago, but eventually the truth won out. Consider whether you're on the side of brouhaha or truth. The choice is yours, but consider you've recently been called out for nitpicking. Let's focus on important issues. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No one has categorized Schiff as an Austrian economist. If they had, and did so based on RS, then Steeletrap would be stupid to edit the Schiff article. As your TBAN does not apply to AE (beyond Mises.org), you could remove the categorization (and any sanctions template based on the category) if it was an improper categorization. So please find another strawman to use in your silly argument. "Called out for nitpicking"? That statement is just more of your bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Steeletrap

Srich, I doubt you'd be considered to have "clean hands" at AE with respect to Steeletrap at this point. Tenuous claims or claims that are not obvious on their face are apt to get you into trouble in that context. Let's focus on important matters, not this and that and this and that. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap has been following my edits, and I will follow hers. Removing the {{Discretionary sanctions}} template was an obvious violation. If she thinks the template does not apply, when the article is is the Category:Austrian School economists she is being stupid. But that is not an excuse for TBAN violations. Perhaps she could take a hint and get someone to revert off-wiki. But considering that Doug Casey is a mises.org-related person, any meatpuppet of Steeletrap who removes such a template had better "edit carefully". – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Question, Srich: If you were to put the DS on, say, Paul Krugman, would I be allowed to correct your error? What if you put AE on my talk page? Clearly the standard of whether I am banned from a page should be whether it relates to the subject of my TB; not whether someone says it does. Steeletrap (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What? Has Krugman had an epiphany? Alas, I don't see any Austrian School or Mises.org relationship in his article so I think his usefulness as a straw man in this case is limited. And without proper categorization I would not put a sanctions template on his article. Do you know of any articles that are improperly categorized? If so, you can ask me off-wiki to look at them. (I'm about 1/3rd through my survey of the Austrian School-related articles.) For your part, I repeat my admonition to steer well clear of TBAN topics, even if you think you are correcting an error. (I'm not sure what you mean by me putting AE on your talk page. I have not done so. (Rest assured that I will not post TBAN topics on your talk page.) If someone wished to discuss an AE topic with you, you'd be well advised to ignore or remove the thread. You'd be free to clean up you own talk page by removing such postings without replying.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant to ask: "What if you put the DS [template] on my talk"? If I removed it, would that be a violation of the TB? Steeletrap (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Read what the template says: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully." So, 1. your talk page is not an article and 2. no one has put the DS template on your talk page. I will watch your talk page and immediately remove the template for you if I see someone adding it. And then I'll bring up the editor (or IP) who did so at the ANI for disruptive behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Gander and the Goose

Have a peek, Srich. The Casey thing is even dumber than the Schiff thing was. And the Schiff thing went on and on and on. [2] Not everyone who writes about economics is an economist. Not everyone who writes about Austrian economics is an Austrian economist. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WTF? A 4 year old discussion?? Where did I make any comment? Where am I saying Schiff is an Austrian? Who is saying he's an Austrian? What is your point vis-a-vis categorization of the Austrians or the templates I posted? Again, WTF? – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your views on Casey are even weaker than those views on Schiff. They won't hold up to scrutiny. I suggest you drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just who is coming onto this page to wave some tiny twig around? This is now the third thread that you started. You, Specifico, can't comment (or edit) on Casey because he's related to Mises.org. So I suggest you drop this bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about your edit.

Here. What's your problem with "however"? It's contrasting two very different receptions, and such language is used on Wikipedia all the time. Otherwise, if readers are just skimming, they might not even notice the shift in reception in the third sentence. To the minimal extent it's "editorial", it's well within our purview as editors. VictorD7 (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"However" is specifically mentioned at MOS:OPED. Whether it is used properly or not in other articles is a different question. In this article, with the NPOV debate going on, I'm trying to steer the section into a properly balanced mode. Thanks for your comment. I think the hole section will be extensively re-written by the time all of us are done. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It says "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists", but in this case there clearly is a relationship since one reception is mostly negative while the other is strongly positive. The page simply advises that such words be used with "care"; it doesn't forbid them. Apart from the word "however" simply appearing on that page, do you have an actual argument justifying your edit? Can you explain why you feel it was being inappropriately used in this instance? VictorD7 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless one source actually references another (like they say "We DGAF what so-and-so says, the film was crap/a masterpiece!"), there is no actual or explicit relationship. We only imply a relationship by contrasting the different reviews with the word "however". But in a contentious article such as this one, we cannot do so. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is incorrect. As editors we imply relationships all the time simply by page layout; assigning certain segments to certain sections in the sequence we do. What do you think "summarizing" does? It implies relationships among different sources, and I can think of many contexts where words like "but" or "however" are perfectly appropriate. VictorD7 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for realizing the bias in "however".

For the longest time, I thought I was the only one that bugged. Then just yesterday (maybe two days ago now), I found another editor doing this elsewhere and thanked him. Now this. It's good to know there are similar eyes out there. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It is not an overt bit of bias – we just have to be careful. – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I usually reword when I find it as at least in my experience it's been used to make an argument by suggesting a relationship. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean you didn't know about MOS:OPED until now? I've criticized use of words like "however" and "though" before too, when they were inappropriate. But sometimes they are appropriate, and policy allows for that. In this case two clearly different reception results were being contrasted, so there's no legitimate reason for removal. VictorD7 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In the case we have in mind, especially with the NPOVN going on, I think I did well to "disconnect" the two sentences. "However" was being used to compare the reactions of the audiences and the critics. The article will progress quite well without the "however". – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Friendly advice.

I hope you have the presence of mind to reflect on how many Admins have rebuked you for your interpersonal lapses over the past 6-8 weeks. I suggest you stay away from situations which you find too "stimulating" for you. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. Utter bullshit. You refactor my comment to imply that I had made a personal attack. Nothing of the sort had occurred. Why don't you take your concerns to the ANI. I'd like it. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Further comments: If you offer me friendly advice (or even ask me to look at certain articles), then why complain about my posting on your talk page? That is speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

Regarding your talk page comment:

...You can confirm for yourself that I did not say you are "in denial" -- a statement which would be ad hominem and require an evaluation of your psychological or emotional condition. I stated in simple terms that any attorney should find routine that you deny the proposition put forth by the cited link. Reading "deny" to mean "in denial" is bizarre and further suggests you might benefit from a breather on these challenging articles..... SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a strange way of reading "deny". You said:

I was referring to this, which Srich appears to deny. ...

I replied:

Bullshit. I have not denied anything....Add it yourself, Specifico, or are you denying that the material is noteworthy?

I did not contend that you were saying I was "in denial". (Moreover, the fact that I choose not to add material cannot be construed to mean I deny the material.) But what really matters is the fact that your comment on the article talk page was not directed towards article improvement. It was a dig at me, pure and simple. Dig away if you like. I've got a bigger shovel than you. And having shoveled a lot of shit in my life, I know how to use it. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add a bit of friendly advice. Whenever you feel a personal attack has taken place, contact another editor (or administrator) and ask them (informally) to consider an rpa template and/or proper rebuke to the offender. If they do so, you will be vindicated. If they do not, then you can consider why they did not act on your request. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You two might be happier if you had a mutual interaction ban. Don't ya think? SPECIFICO - there is no reason to provoke S.Rich. You know that your comment is not going to be taken well from S.Rich so there was no point in coming here to say anything. Anyway - what is the latest dispute, can I help at all?--v/r - TP 05:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy. Indeed, Happy Happy Joy Joy is my theme song. Provocation? My mother and her step-father were at Hickam Field when some Japanese pilots provoked the USAAF, so my family has a history of dealing with provocation. Dispute? There is no latest dispute – Specifico seems to think/agree that a 19 year old $5k donation to The Independent Institute from Philip Morris is not significant. But Specifico can't convince me to something else to the article. Anyway, I do not think Specifico would agree to an IBAN. I might apply for adminship and Specifico would like to comment if I do. While Specifico once thought I'd be a good admin, I wouldn't want to deprive Specifico of the opportunity to try and frustrate me. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's funny you'd mention Hickam. Did I tell you I am stationed at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam right now?--v/r - TP 06:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I do wish...

...you would have at least waited for Gamaliel's response to my compromise proposal before creating a new subsection for your own that threatens to bury mine, and that you had to know I'd find unacceptable. VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If I read the UTCs correctly, Gamaliel has edited since you posted the idea. I posted after he edited, but I was not looking to see what he had done. I have de-sectionalized the proposal. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you to undo the subsection header. I'm not sure what good that even does since there's still a bolded title and a lot of text. Undoing the edit jump may make it even harder to find where discussion of the previous proposal had left off. I wasn't calling on you to change anything. I was just letting you know for future reference that it might be better to let a proposal sit and simmer for a while before trumping it with a new one before the first one had even garnered a direct response. VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What is it you're claiming failed to verify here?

[3] Before Gamaliel churlishly deleted the discussion without comment, you posted on his talk page to claim that "fantastic" doesn't appear in the link, and you added the failed verification tag to the article. Two points:

1. The "fantastic" quote had already been removed by Gamaliel, so are you claiming that something else that's still there failed to verify?

2. The "fantastic" quote most certainly does verify. Scroll down about halfway down the page to read this quote: "Dinesh D'Souza's America (2014) had a fantastic hold this weekend. The documentary eased 13 percent to $2.45million; to date, its earned $8.2 million."

"fantastic" is a silly item. Hollywood puffery. Let's be encyclopedic and omit it. (JFC, the important aspect of the article is the criticism of .....!) "only" is editorializing, not acceptable for us as WP editors because we are making a comparison that is not in the source. I do not see "12.8%" – have you done your own calculation? If so, you might explain the math in an editor comment. (I've added an editor comment next to the failed verify tag explaining the tag.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that an industry writer's telling description is mere "silly" "puffery", since it imparts to readers who likely otherwise don't know a sense of how strong the hold was, but that doesn't address why you claimed it failed to verify. Did you just miss it earlier? If so, do you now retract that comment?

As for the rest, the pertinent source, which supports more than one sentence, got pushed down some. A poster split it into a second paragraph for some reason, and now it follows the second sentence in that second paragraph. Did you check this reference? Looks like mystery solved on that front. Regarding "only", it's not OR considering the source called it a "fantastic hold" that "eased" back 13 percent. Most Wikipedia text is paraphrased or summarized, not directly quoted, and "only" accurately reflects the author's tone and point. If anything, it understates it. VictorD7 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The MoJo article uses the term "fantastic" three times on one page. It is just a throw-away term. And for WP purposes, it should be thrown away. You do not have my support to include it. 12.8% is verified, but in a reference not cited. Provide that link as a citation. But leave out "only". That is an interpretation. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why using the word "fantastic" three times in a long piece covering many movies and singling out a few examples of exceptional performance in various aspects makes it a "throw away" term, but, since you now acknowledge its appearance, you never did explain why you earlier claimed it wasn't there. I'm not trying to berate you, I'm just genuinely curious why you went out of your way to post a claim that it failed to verify.

The "12.8%" link is already reference "15" in the article. I just told you where I found it. It follows the sentence ending in "...its total gross to $8,211,791." You failed to address my point that "fantastic", throwaway term or not, was expressing the author's sentiment that the receipts only dropped around 13%. Do you deny that? VictorD7 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

12.8% is "supported" by reference 13. Straighten it out. Stop conflating. Use "only" if the source uses only. Be precise. The sources should directly verify the text, not be posted elsewhere in the text. – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the "12.8%" fact is supported by reference 15 (13 follows that sentence and was added to support the "fantastic hold" quote), precisely where I said it was. I didn't put it there though, so don't blame me if you think it belongs somewhere else. You're free to move or duplicate it (maybe via ref name). That said, I'll point out that multiple sentences cover the second week results, and it's common and acceptable on Wikipedia for references to support more than one preceding sentence. The Synopsis source currently sources a few paragraphs, lol.

Speaking of precision, do you retract your claim that the "fantastic hold" line didn't verify? I'm not asking if you support its inclusion, I'd just like you to acknowledge that the earlier claim was incorrect lest someone believe it, especially since I did add that source. Regarding "only", do you deny that the author was commenting on how small the drop was? I'm not insisting you agree with me, but please answer these reasonable questions so we can at least work from a common set of basic premises. VictorD7 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Careful

Careful. I'm not sure how it happened but it seems as if you've attracted a group of editors who are determined to scuttle your Admin bid. I just notice you railing against Eric Corbett for cussing, but I think you'd do best to keep a low profile in case they search your talk page and find that it's peppered with your own colorful language. Probably best to lay low and stick to the cleanup routine for now. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

Notice posted as you are related to, but not the subject of, the ANI.
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Eric Corbett's behavior. The thread is Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett. Thank you. —EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Hi S. Rich. I wanted to let you know that I opened an incident report on EllenCT at the administrator's noticeboard on her behavior at Neonicotinoid. I know you have your self-imposed interaction ban, and this is not a request for comment on my part, but rather I'm just letting you know I cited some of your talk page responses in the process of summarizing the behavior issues on the page so there aren't any surprises for you. Perfectly fine to ignore this one if you want. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD, etc.

Hey, counselor. Thanks for your understanding in the Nick DeCarbo AfD. I do a lot of work with sports-related AfDs, if you have any questions, or would like to get more involved with sports AfDs, let me know. I'm happy to provide quick background and a road map for future endeavors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite alright. Today I've doing backlog stuff on Bio templates. Adding living or dead, BLP/BLPO stuff. I reached a point where I thought "what's so great about this guy? is is worth posting "living=no" or shall I just template for an afd. Your quick response and guidance is appreciated. I'll leave the sports afds to others. – S. Rich (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)